Article: Growth hormone doesn't boost athletic abilities

  • Thread starter Thread starter saudades
  • Start date Start date
https://ugloz.is/ domestic-supplyUS-PHARMACIES UGFREAK
S

saudades

Guest
Found this on MSNBC

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Growth hormone doesn't boost athletic abilities
HGH may actually impair performance, review of studies finds

updated 3:00 p.m. MT, Mon., March. 17, 2008
NEW YORK - Athletes who take human growth hormone may not be getting the boost they expected.

While growth hormone adds some muscle, it doesn’t appear to improve strength or exercise capacity, according to a review of studies that tested the hormone in mostly athletic young men.

“It doesn’t look like it helps and there’s a hint of evidence it may worsen athletic performance,” said Dr. Hau Liu, of Santa Clara Valley Medical Center in San Jose, Calif., who was lead author of the review.

Growth hormone, or HGH, is among the performance enhancers baseball stars Roger Clemens and Andy Pettitte were accused of taking in the blockbuster Mitchell Report. Clemens denies using the hormone, while Pettitte admits using it.

But the new research has some limitations and sheds no light on long-term use of HGH. The scientists note their analysis included few studies that measured performance. The tests also probably don’t reflect the dose and frequency practiced by athletes illegally using the hormone. Experiments like that aren’t likely to be conducted.

“It’s dangerous, unethical and it’s never going to be done,” said Dr. Gary I. Wadler, a member of the World Anti-Doping Agency and a spokesman for the American College of Sports Medicine.

Consequently, those in the field have to depend on such reviews or “what we hear on the ground,” he added.

Human growth hormone is made by the pituitary gland and promotes growth. A synthetic version has been available since the 1980s and its use is restricted for certain conditions in children and adults, including short stature, growth hormone deficiency and wasting from AIDS.

Although banned for other uses, growth hormone has been used by a variety of athletes and was cited along with steroids as one of the performance-enhancing drugs abused by baseball players in the report in December by former Senate majority leader George Mitchell. Several athletes, including Pettitte, have said they used HGH while recovering from an injury, an issue not covered in the review.

“There are a lot of claims that it’s this wonder drug,” said Liu.

Wadler said one of the appeals of growth hormone for athletes is that it can’t be detected in a urine test. A blood test will be available soon, and another is in development, he said.

“They think they are getting a free ride — they aren’t getting a drug test,” he said. “They believe they are stronger and bigger.”

Liu and his colleagues at Stanford University sought to find out if growth hormone really could improve performance. They looked for the best published tests, those comparing participants who got the hormone to those who didn’t get the treatment.

They analyzed 27 studies involving 440 participants. The results were released Monday by the Annals of Internal Medicine.

Researchers found that those who got the hormone put on about 5 pounds more of muscle, and lost about 2 pounds more of fat, although the fat loss wasn’t statistically different. The researchers said some of the extra body mass could just be fluid buildup.

There was no difference found in strength or exercise stamina between the two groups, but there were only two strength studies and eight that measured exercise. Those who got the hormone had more side effects including swelling and fatigue.

The review couldn’t consider long-term effects, since the longest study was three months, and most were much shorter.

The researchers also said the doses used in the research may be lower than those used by athletes, who may be combining growth hormone with other performance-enhancing drugs.

Dr. Alan Rogol of the University of Virginia and the Indiana University School of Medicine, said the work was a good review but had to rely on inadequate research.

“There are just tons of things we don’t know,” said Rogol.

The California researchers had support from Stanford, government agencies and Genentech Inc., which makes growth hormone; none of the groups had a role in the study. Two researchers also have been consultants or received grants from Genentech and other drugmakers.
----------------------------------
 
I've been reading these artlicles all over the web the past few days but none of them say what doses they ran the studies. I read one study that said it included over 400 test subjects but they don't go into any other detials
 
This article says they were low doses that weren't even close to doses commonly ran by people:

The tests also probably don’t reflect the dose and frequency practiced by athletes illegally using the hormone. Experiments like that aren’t likely to be conducted.

“It’s dangerous, unethical and it’s never going to be done,” said Dr. Gary I. Wadler, a member of the World Anti-Doping Agency and a spokesman for the American College of Sports Medicine.

How then are they going to find out what they want to know, or better yet what we already know? Besides, when we're talking about athletes here, they commonly use it for speeding recovery and healing--not building muscle or increasing endurance, and certainly not at the low doses they used in this study. I read this article and thought to myself, "You doctors are stupid idiots!"
 
lol...I actually believe this to some extent. However, they don't measure how quickly each "athelete" recovers from the stress from their sport which is one of the most important aspects of growth hormone. I've never heard anyone say that GH put tons of weight on them (unless at high doses and with insulin added). However, it put a few pounds of muscle and a loss of a few pounds of fat which this study shows. They are probably using sub-standard athletic dosing for short periods of time which we all know that you need to use it for at least 4 -6 months to see any real results. If you want quick results look towards IGF.
 
Bigger I was thinking of the same thing... the bottom line is.. the longest study was only months! ... and seriously.. what was the dosing.. amounts and inject schedule... how did they do it? .. where did they inject...

this crap annoys me too... all they are doing is reporting news that public thinks it wants to hear.. and what the govt' wants the public to hear....
 
Back
Top